Top

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Published in:

01-10-2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Do patients who achieve pregnancy using IVF-PGS do the recommended genetic diagnostic testing in pregnancy?

Authors: Dana Kimelman, Rafael Confino, Edmond Confino, Lee P. Shulman, John X. Zhang, Mary Ellen Pavone

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 10/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) are counseled about the limitations of this technique. As part of the consent process for PGS, physicians recommend diagnostic genetic testing performed in early pregnancy to definitively rule out chromosomal abnormalities. We have noted anecdotally, however, that few patients undergo the recommended diagnostic testing. In this study, we are examining if women who conceived using IVF-PGS did early pregnancy chromosomal testing, and if they did, what type of testing they had.

Methods

This study was performed from 2015 to 2017 in the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at Northwestern University. We included patients who became pregnant after IVF-PGS who were seen by the Division of Reproductive Genetics and non-PGS control group.

Results

Sixty-eight patients were included. A total of 50 patients (73.5%) opted for non-invasive prenatal screening; 5 (7.4%) had invasive testing (4 had chorionic villus sampling and 1 had amniocentesis). A total of 13 patients (19%) declined further genetic testing. When comparing demographic data, the mean age was significantly higher in the group of patients who pursued non-invasive testing than in the group who declined further testing (37.15 vs 34.05 years old, p < 0.05). Control group declined invasive diagnostic testing.

Conclusions

Most patients who conceive using IVF-PGS do not pursue diagnostic prenatal chromosomal testing. Future studies focusing on decision making in this patient group are warranted to further elucidate why a small percentage of patients opt for diagnostic testing, even when adequately counseled about the inherent limitations of PGS.

Munné S, Alikani M, Tomkin G, Grifo J, Cohen J. Embryo morphology, developmental rates, and maternal age are correlated with chromosome abnormalities **Presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of The American Fertility Society, San Antonio, Texas, November 4 to 9, 1994, where it was awarded the prize paper of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(2):382–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57739-5.CrossRefPubMed

Bielanska M, Tan SL, Ao A. Chromosomal mosaicism throughout human implantation development in vitro: incidence, type, and relevance to embryo outcome. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):413–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.2.413.CrossRefPubMed

Munné S, Sandalinas M, Magli C, Gianaroli L, Cohen J, Warburton D. Increased rate of aneuploid embryos in young women with previous aneuploid conceptions. Prenat Diagn. 2004;24(8):638–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.957.CrossRefPubMed

Kuliev A, Cieslak J, Verlinsky Y. Frequency and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):193–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086889.CrossRefPubMed

Magli MC, Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Lappi M, Ruberti A, Farfalli V. Embryo morphology and development are dependent on the chromosomal complement. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):534–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1512.CrossRefPubMed

Munné S, Chen S, Colls P, Garrisi J, Zheng X, Cekleniak N, et al. Maternal age, morphology, development and chromosome abnormalities in over 6000 cleavage-stage embryos. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14(5):628–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61057-7.CrossRefPubMed

Hassold T, Hunt P. Maternal age and chromosomally abnormal pregnancies: what we know and what we wish we knew. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009;21(6):703–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e328332c6ab.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gleicher N, Vidali A, Braverman J, Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Hudson C, et al. Accuracy of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is compromised by degree of mosaicism of human embryos. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14(1):54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-016-0193-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kokkali G, Traeger-Synodinos J, Vrettou C, Stavrou D, Jones GM, Cram DS, et al. Blastocyst biopsy versus cleavage stage biopsy and blastocyst transfer for preimplantation genetic diagnosis of beta-thalassaemia: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(5):1443–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del506.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Vera-Rodriguez M, Rubio C. Assessing the true incidence of mosaicism in preimplantation embryos. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1107–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.019.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Paulson RJ. Preimplantation genetic screening: what is the clinical efficiency? Fertil Steril. 2017;108(2):228–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.023.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Akolekar R, Beta J, Picciarelli G, Ogilvie C, D'Antonio F. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45(1):16–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14636.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Devers PL, Cronister A, Ormond KE, Facio F, Brasington CK, Flodman P. Noninvasive prenatal testing/noninvasive prenatal diagnosis: the position of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. 2013;22(3):291–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-012-9564-0.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Brezina PR, Kutteh WH, Bailey AP, Ke RW. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is an excellent tool, but not perfect: a guide to counseling patients considering PGS. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(1):49–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.042.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sills SE, Schattman GL, Veeck LL, Liu H-C, Prasad M, Rosenwaks Z. Characteristics of consecutive in vitro fertilization cycles among patients treated with follicle-stimulationg hormone (FSH) and human menopausal gonadotropin versus FSH alone. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(5):831–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00046-6.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schoolcraft WB, Fragouli E, Stevens J, Munne S, Katz-Jaffe MG, Wells D. Clinical application of comprehensive chromosomal screening at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1700–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.015.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ly KD, Agarwal A, Nagy ZP. Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(9):833–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-011-9608-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Yang Z, Liu J, Collins GS, Salem SA, Liu X, Lyle SS, et al. Selection of single blastocysts for fresh transfer via standard morphology assessment alone and with array CGH for good prognosis IVF patients: results from a randomized pilot study. Mol Cytogenet. 2012;5(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1755-8166-5-24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bodurtha J, Strauss JF. Genomics and perinatal care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(1):64–73. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1105043.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Arian S, Westerfield L, Erfani H, Nassef S, Buffie A, Gibbons WE, et al. Genetic screening and testing in pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) with preimplantation genetic screening (PGS). Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):e292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.861.CrossRef

21.

Takyi A, Santolaya-Forgas J. Prenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities in IVF patients that opted for preimplantation genetic screening/diagnosis (PGS/D): a need for revised algorithms in the era of personalized medicine. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(6):723–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0907-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Do patients who achieve pregnancy using IVF-PGS do the recommended genetic diagnostic testing in pregnancy?
Authors: Dana Kimelman
Rafael Confino
Edmond Confino
Lee P. Shulman
John X. Zhang
Mary Ellen Pavone
Publication date: 01-10-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1289-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Do patients who achieve pregnancy using IVF-PGS do the recommended genetic diagnostic testing in pregnancy?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Variations in the endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) may actually represent test error

Luteinization desynchronized: the devil is in the details

A treatment algorithm for couples with unexplained infertility based on sperm chromatin assessment

GDF-9 and BMP-15 direct the follicle symphony

A microwell culture system that allows group culture and is compatible with human single media

In vitro fertilization with granulosa cell tumor: a report of two cases